PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court on Monday suspended the detention of a college student under the Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance on the orders of Upper Dir’s deputy commissioner and ordered his release.

A bench consisting of Justice Mohammad Ijaz Khan and Justice Dr Khursheed Iqbal directed the detainee and petitioner, Samiullah, a 23-year-old resident of Shalgah area in Upper Dir district, to furnish two surety bonds to the tune of Rs300,000 each.

The district administration claimed that the petitioner had declined to hoist the national flag and intended to hoist black and white flags on his residence on occasion of the Independence Day and his act was a threat to public order in the area.

The bench ordered the provincial government, Upper Dir’s DC and its district police officer to submit comments within a fortnight to the petition filed by detainee Samiullah challenging the impugned order of the DC issued on Aug 13.

Dir admin insists detainee intended to hoist black and white flags at home on Independence Day

Advocate Alam Khan Adenzai appeared for the petitioner and insisted that his client was arrested on allegations that he would not hoist the national flag at his house on the Independence Day and would instead hoist black and white flags.

He wondered how the DPO and DC knew in advance that the petitioner wouldn’t be hoisting the national flag.

The lawyer argued that those allegations did not attract the provisions of the MPO Ordinance and that the DC had erred in issuing the impugned order.

He contended that the petitioner had to sit the Aug 25 test for the posts of constables in the police department, so keeping him behind bars and deny him that job opportunity would be an act of injustice against him.

Mr Adenzai argued that the petitioner was neither involved in any criminal activity nor had he carried out any anti-state activity, so the detention orders issued by the DC for him had no legal basis.

He argued that there was no evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the allegations levelled against him and therefore, the invoking of Section 3 of the MPO Ordinance was unconstitutional and illegal.

An additional advocate general said that the DC had mentioned in his order that the DPO had reports that the petitioner had resorted to “revolt” by refusing to celebrate the Independence Day and hoist the national flag atop his house, and intending to hoist black and white flags instead.

He said that such rebellious attitude came in the ambit of uprising and was meant to disrupt the peaceful atmosphere of the district and create a law and order situation as well.

The bench observed that the points raised by the petitioner’s counsel prima facie had substance.

Published in Dawn, August 22nd, 2023